The Dean of the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA) Law School, Prof Ernest Kofi Abotsi, has called on the ECOWAS Court of Justice to establish clearer and more predictable boundaries for exercising its jurisdiction to strengthen public confidence in the regional judicial institution.

Prof Abotsi said clearly defined jurisdictional principles would help address concerns over national sovereignty, reduce resistance to the Court’s decisions and reinforce its legitimacy.

He made the remarks at the 2026 ECOWAS Court of Justice International Conference in Dakar, Senegal, being held from September 21 to 25 under the theme, “ECOWAS Court of Justice at the Crossroads: Justice, Innovation, Human Rights Protection and the Future of Regional Integration in West Africa.”

According to Prof Abotsi, the Court needs a model of justice that fulfils its legal mandate while being understood and accepted by governments, citizens, lawyers and other stakeholders.

“Conceptualising a feasible, workable and acceptable model of justice which not only appeals to the constituents of its jurisdiction but also delivers on the mandate of integration is crucially important to the Court's work for a variety of reasons,” he said.

He said predictable principles would reduce attempts to resist or evade the Court’s orders while strengthening its authority and institutional legitimacy.

Lessons from the ECJ

Prof Abotsi suggested that the ECOWAS Court could draw lessons from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), particularly its use of predetermined rules of jurisdictional self-restraint.

“The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) erection of predetermined rules of jurisdictional self-restraint helps to assure countries against sovereignty concerns while reinforcing its own standing in the eyes of adversaries,” Prof Abotsi said.

He explained that such rules allowed the ECJ to determine complex cases through established doctrines rather than developing jurisdictional boundaries on a case-by-case basis.

He identified the ECJ’s “purely internal situation” and “scope of EU law” doctrines as possible templates for the ECOWAS Court as it develops its own jurisprudential and procedural “guardrails”.

“Benchmarking the Court's work against a set of rationally predeterminable principles of justice saves the institution from the burden of extra-judicially explaining the reasons shaping its conclusions,” he said.

Prof Abotsi also referred to criticisms by Nigerian lawyer and human rights advocate Femi Falana concerning what he described as inconsistencies in the jurisprudential foundations of some of the Court’s decisions.

He said a clearer framework could help litigants and states understand the principles guiding the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Togo case

Prof Abotsi cited the ECOWAS Court’s handling of a case concerning constitutional reforms in Togo as an example of the difficulties transnational courts face when dealing with politically sensitive constitutional disputes.

The Court ruled in January 2026 that aspects of Togo’s 2024 constitutional reform amounted to an unconstitutional change of government under Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, while dismissing or declaring inadmissible other claims brought by the applicants.

Prof Abotsi said such cases could expose transnational courts to accusations of political interference.

“Constitutional cases are naturally heavily conflictual, and when transnational Courts insert themselves at the centre of these disputes, they expose themselves to accusations of meddling and taking sides in the absence of important safeguards put in place like those of the ECJ,” he said.

He argued that clearer interpretive models could help determine which matters should remain within national discretion and which should properly be adjudicated by the ECOWAS Court.

Jurisdictional restraint and enforcement

Prof Abotsi stressed that his proposal was not a call for the Court to exclude complaints brought by individuals or states.

“This is not to suggest that the ECCJ should exclude from its purview complaints of citizens and states coming before it in the name of giving states a wide margin of appreciation,” he said.

Rather, he said, the Court should delineate its jurisdiction in a way that preserves access to regional justice while recognising legitimate areas of national decision-making.

“Delineating the boundaries of its jurisdiction builds the confidence and trust of its patrons, and ensures that the remit of the state and its preliminary right to exercise judgment in certain matters is upheld and ultimately not disrespected,” he said.

He linked jurisdictional restraint to the Court’s persistent challenge of securing compliance with its orders.

“Given that one of the notable problems of the Court is the disregard of its orders by member states, a measure of deferral of jurisdiction can be deemed healthy to its work,” he said.

ECOWAS Commission President General Birame Diop has also identified the gap between the Court’s authority and the execution of its decisions as a serious test of its credibility.

Balancing justice and impact

Prof Abotsi further urged the Court to consider how its decisions are perceived and received while maintaining principled judicial reasoning.

“Building a robust system of justice will require that the court works on the perceptual aspect of its work and how its orders are broadly received,” he said.

He acknowledged that decisions must be driven by principle but argued that the Court could not completely disregard their potential impact.

“Thus in dealing with the challenges of dispensing justice in a transnational context, one needs to admit the hard difficulty here, namely balancing a consequentialist mindset with principled justice administration,” he said.

The ECOWAS Court was established under Articles 6 and 15 of the 1993 Revised ECOWAS Treaty as the principal judicial organ of the Community. Its mandate has evolved to include human rights litigation involving individuals and other non-state actors.

The 2026 conference is examining the Court’s jurisprudence and enforcement of judgments, alongside issues including artificial intelligence and data protection, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, a proposed appellate chamber, environmental justice, and refugee protection and forced displacement.

For Prof Abotsi, strengthening the Court does not necessarily mean expanding its intervention in every dispute. Rather, he advocates predictable principles and clearly understood jurisdictional boundaries that can preserve access to justice while reducing unnecessary disputes over the scope of its authority.

He maintained that jurisdictional restraint should not weaken the Court’s human rights mandate, but should help balance supranational judicial authority with legitimate areas of national decision-making.